I have seen hundreds of musicals having grown up a short distance from Broadway at a time when standing room tickets were cheap. Cats is a weak story with disconnected songs whose overall appeal is to those that want a flashy stage show vs a solid musical. Weber in general is overly praised.
Yes and that’s it’s point. Its fun, it’s dumb, and it doesn’t really have any drama that you have to follow. Its not supposed to be a “solid or serious musical”.
I imagine you’re also the type of person who doesn’t like the first couple of fast and furious movies. And there’s nothing wrong with that, different stroke for different folks and all that.
Plus, Cats is so much fun to actually put on. I’m a tech guy, but Cats is one of my all time favorites to do because there’s a ton that happens, and it’s super flashy which is really fun to program and manage. But that doesn’t really matter for how good a musical actually is.
Yes and that’s it’s point. Its fun, it’s dumb, and it doesn’t really have any drama that you have to follow. Its not supposed to be a “solid or serious musical”.
Which is why it is a bad musical.
I imagine you’re also the type of person who doesn’t like the first couple of fast and furious movies. And there’s nothing wrong with that, different stroke for different folks and all that
The first was great and they don’t pick up again until 4 or 5. I have seen every film except X at least three times.
Plus, Cats is so much fun to actually put on. I’m a tech guy,…But that doesn’t really matter for how good a musical actually is
Im cutting out the stuff in the middle because you perfectly highlight the issue. The thing that stands out to you isn’t the musical rather it is the flashy effects.
Im saying Cats is a bad musical. They are saying the stage effects are good which is different than the actual musical being good. Im not saying they can’t enjoy themselves only that Cats is a bad example of its art form.
Was this conversation really that hard for you to follow?
I’ve been a theatre kid for my entire life. I’ve seen and helped produce hundreds of plays over my life.
Cats is incredible and the reason people don’t think so is snobbery. I know you’ll disagree and I don’t care. I’ll die on this hill.
Well one of you should.
I have seen hundreds of musicals having grown up a short distance from Broadway at a time when standing room tickets were cheap. Cats is a weak story with disconnected songs whose overall appeal is to those that want a flashy stage show vs a solid musical. Weber in general is overly praised.
Yes and that’s it’s point. Its fun, it’s dumb, and it doesn’t really have any drama that you have to follow. Its not supposed to be a “solid or serious musical”.
I imagine you’re also the type of person who doesn’t like the first couple of fast and furious movies. And there’s nothing wrong with that, different stroke for different folks and all that.
Plus, Cats is so much fun to actually put on. I’m a tech guy, but Cats is one of my all time favorites to do because there’s a ton that happens, and it’s super flashy which is really fun to program and manage. But that doesn’t really matter for how good a musical actually is.
Which is why it is a bad musical.
The first was great and they don’t pick up again until 4 or 5. I have seen every film except X at least three times.
Im cutting out the stuff in the middle because you perfectly highlight the issue. The thing that stands out to you isn’t the musical rather it is the flashy effects.
Damn people enjoying things really pisses you off, huh?
Im saying Cats is a bad musical. They are saying the stage effects are good which is different than the actual musical being good. Im not saying they can’t enjoy themselves only that Cats is a bad example of its art form.
Was this conversation really that hard for you to follow?
Sorry wasn’t really paying attention. I was distracted by Mr. Mistoffelees’ magic.